Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6194277" data-attributes="member: 42582">Agreed. Or rather, to the extent that it did exist, it is the same archetype as the paladin, namely, the holy warrior. And being a holy warrior isn't something you train for - the gods bestow vocations upon their chosen vessels.In Gygax's AD&D the upshot of this is slightly ad hoc rules for divine intervention. But Achilles seems to get it almost whenever he needs it - is he therefore best modelled as a cleric rather than a fighter?To the best of my knowledge the cleric class was introduced into the game to counter-balance a vampire PC, as a type of undead hunter (I think Van Helsing was one inspiration, and maybe Solomon Kane was another source of inspiration for that sort of character).There's a lot here.First, as [MENTION=717]JRRNeiklot[/MENTION] pointed out, Gygax designed plenty of potions that worked only for fighters. And the fact that fighters can use a wide range of magic items was called out in their class description as a valuable class feature (contrast the monk, who from memory can't use potions at all, and is heavily restricted in relation to other items too; or the illusionist, who has far fewer useable magic items than the MU). These were clearly decisions connected to the mechanical effectiveness of each class.Second, if 7 league boots work for anyone than make that part of their item description - but it doesn't follow that all other items work the same.Third, in Tolkien a hobbit can't use the Palantir - all Pippin does is trigger the curse and get his mind temporarily blasted by Sauron - so why should s/he be able to in the game, if fidelity to genre is what we're after. Even Gandalf couldn't use the Palantir safely (as Saruman's experience revealed) - Denethor was better at it than Saruman, but Aragorn was the true wielder (hence the ability of 10th level rangers in Gygaxian AD&D to use crystal balls!).The real design issue, it seems to me, is this: are classes simply bundles of features and capabilities, or are they primarily bundles of story elements expressed in mechanical terms? 3E and PF take the first approach, and it is also a central par of 4e; classic D&D takes the second approach - hence wizards can't use swords or armour, only fighters can benefit from potions of heroism, etc, and 4e adopts a version of this approach, too, by combining fairly tight class design (except for wizards in later supplements) with very limited cross-classing.If classes are meant to be bundles of story elements, and a key genre conceit is that only the greatest of crusaders will wield a Holy Avenger, then it makes perfect sense for there to be a class restriction on the use of that item. Part of what you get, when you choose to play a paladin, is the possiblity of living out that particular story with your PC. When you choose to play a different class you're choosing a different bundle of story elements, which won't include a Holy Avenger but might include something else.I understand the force of the argument, but I think you're asking background and feats to bear a load that would be too big a change for a fairly conservative D&D design like Next.</blockquote>

Verification